memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Template talk:Pna-incomplete
Instructions say Talk: about it. Failure to adhere should have consequences You know what? All too often, on any given page, the PNA tag, as written, contains a lie: "Information regarding expansion requirements may be found on the article's talk page." I think that anyone who uses this tag should be required to Talk: about it, or the tag should be removed. Tags stay on a page for years at a time when no conditions for satisfying the "expansion requirements" are known. Do we expect the person who added the tag to follow up? I don't, and with that in mind I think that either the person who added the tag and the date the tag is added should be part of the tag (so we can know how long it's been there or easily ask the tagger what they're thinking), OR, that tags with NO corresponding Talk: page topic should be deleted routinely. If we can't get people to add Talk:, as the instructions for using the template say, then let's either change the template so that the original tagger can easily be addressed and the "freshness" of the tag can easily be discerned, or, start deleting these "hit-and-run" tags whose users don't speak up. If nobody else knows what the tagger thinks is missing from a page, what's the use of having the tag there at all? TribbleFurSuit 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :While I read this as stating the obvious...there shouldn't be that any/that many tagged with no talk page "pna"s. If so, then yes, the person didnt do it right, and the pna should be rectified accordingly, either with removal, or if necessary have the next person who comes across the pna that agrees with the need for expansion to create a corresponding talk page explaining the situation to the best of their ability. Regardless, I'd hardly qualify these actions as being "consequences" versus "general maintenance". --Alan 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :: Sometimes it *may* be very obvious that an article is incomplete without actually having to say "This article is obviously incomplete" on the talk page. I agree that a user should, out of courtesy, address concerns on a talk page if there is some question as to how a page is incomplete, but it should never be a requirement. If a user comes across an unexplained PNA with no obvious faults, then they can just as easily remove the PNA as the previous user added it. It doesn't seem that big of a deal, and I've never seen an edit war evolve over unexplained PNA's.--Tim Thomason 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) : Agreed. --Alan 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC) : Funny, this is still a problem. --Alan (talk) 14:27, April 26, 2019 (UTC) Subtly Are there any ideas on something more subtle we could make that could be used in place of this? I can name a plethora of articles that are simply missing one or two almost insignificant references to something related to the article, but it has this big gaudy template slapped on it stating that it is basically "lacking essential detail". It is neither aesthetically pleasing, entirely representatively accurate. I don't know if we can make something small, similar in streamlined appearance and function as the template is or what, but these big ugly templates on articles that are essentially complete, just missing trivial whatnot seems to be overkill. --Alan (talk) 14:27, April 26, 2019 (UTC)